Update from the House Commerce Committee hearing room

I'm sitting on the steps of the Rayburn House office building right now
waiting for the committee to resume deliberations on the SAFE encryption
bill. They've adjourned to vote on unrelated legislation on the House floor.

Right now it seems as though votes are split between Rep. White's
"compromise" legislation (that includes a cash payoff to the FBI and
doubling of crypto-in-a-crime penalties while relaxing some export rules)
and Rep. Oxley's proposal that includes domestic controls on encryption. If
I had to bet, though, I'd put my money on Oxley. Law enforcement arguments
about pedophiles generally trump discussions of privacy rights.

If White's proposal fails and Oxley's goes through, industry groups are
hoping they can keep themselves from being entirely screwed by pushing
through a third amendment that apparently would replace SAFE entirely with
a five-month study. (But who would appoint the people conducting the study?
Law enforcement? It's unclear.)

Rep. Solomon, chair of the powerful House Rules committee -- through which
SAFE must pass before it gets to the floor -- earlier today circulated a
letter asking members to support the Oxley amendment. "If this language is
not incorporated into the bill, as the Chairman of the House Rules
Committee I will not move the bill to the floor!" it says.

FBI director Louis Freeh, DEO head Thomas Constantine, and Raymond Kelley
(undersecretary for enforcement, Treasury Department) also sent a letter
earlier today to the Commerce Committee endorsing Oxley's amendment "on
behalf of the entire law enforcement community."

They don't seem to be exaggerating. The International Association of Chiefs
of Police on September 22 said just that. So did the National Sherrifs'
Association yesterday. And the National District Attorneys Association on
September 19. And the Major Cities Chiefs on September 23. Plus a few state
police associations.

More soon...

-Declan


-------------------------
Declan McCullagh
Time Inc.
The Netly News Network
Washington Correspondent
http://netlynews.com/

Declan McCullagh wrote:

> Law enforcement arguments
> about pedophiles generally trump discussions of privacy rights.

  The problem seems to be that LEA's are full to the brim with 
incompetent officers who are incapable of enforcing the laws of
the land without violating the citizen's Constitutional rights.
  The solution? Make room in the LEA's for people who *are* 
capable of doing so.

  The US has more of their citizen-units in prison than most of the
'bad' countries that they claim to be protecting us from, yet they
turn around and tell us that, despite the mountains of our cash they
are demanding to keep their protection racket going, that they cannot
protect our children from the great hordes of child molesters and
drug czars who are running free while they spend their time arresting
grandmothers who are putting money in parking meters and confiscating
the vehicles of other grandmothers who have a joint in their car.

  Let me get this straight...
  These dweebs are capable of finding a single joint in a vehicle
travelling amoung thousands of others on the freeway, but they are
incapable of finding a ton of cocaine in an airport with less than
a hundred planes in it?
  These idiots need to be able to invade *everyone's* privacy in
order to catch the millions of pedophiles lurking on the InterNet,
but they can't catch them *now* when it is likely that hardly
any of them know squat about strong encryption?

  Why are the LEA's salaries not tied directly to the price of drugs
on the street? Because, with the price of heroin at a record low for
the decade, then these thieving fucks would be making less than the
minimum wage!

  How about a new system of LEA payments, etc., that is based on
*results*?
  Low drug prices, low LEA salaries. If you are victimized by a
criminal, you get to kill 1 cop. If you are victimized by a cop,
you get to kill 1 politician. If you are victimized by a politician,
you get to Nuke DC!
  "Do you feel lucky, Mr. President? Well...do you?"

> FBI director Louis Freeh, DEO head Thomas Constantine, and Raymond Kelley
> (undersecretary for enforcement, Treasury Department) also sent a letter
> earlier today to the Commerce Committee endorsing Oxley's amendment "on
> behalf of the entire law enforcement community."
> 
> They don't seem to be exaggerating. The International Association of Chiefs
> of Police on September 22 said just that. So did the National Sherrifs'
> Association yesterday. And the National District Attorneys Association on
> September 19. And the Major Cities Chiefs on September 23. Plus a few state
> police associations.

  Uuhhh...are these the guys who can't understand what the crack dealers
are saying?
  Is there a "use of Ebonics in the commission of a crime" provision in
the Oxhead amendment?

  I'm willing to compromise. We hand over our secret keys on the 
condition that if a single key, anywhere in the world, is compromised
by their system, we get to kill every legislator who voted for GAK.
  This, in itself, is likely to result in the elimination, in one 
single year, of more drug dealers and pedophiles than would result
from a hundred years of GAK.

  On the other hand, I am willing to admit that GAK might prove useful
for saving lives in other countries that need to track the activities
of US Foreign-Law Breaking Agencies who are murdering their citizens
by slipping bad components into their imported parts and supplies.

  These fuckers are all crazy...

A Player To Be Named Later

At 03:31 PM 09/24/1997 -0600, A Player To Be Named Later wrote:
>> Law enforcement arguments about pedophiles generally trump 
>> discussions of privacy rights.

Arguments about National Security generally trump both;
if you can spin the discussion right, remember that
widespread strong encryption protects National Security
and helps protect YOUR KIDS' privacy from those EVILDOERS out there.

And by the way, you'd really hope the cryptographically-protected
arming circuits for nuclear weapons don't have their keys escrowed....

>  Let me get this straight...
>  These dweebs are capable of finding a single joint in a vehicle
>travelling amoung thousands of others on the freeway, but they are
>incapable of finding a ton of cocaine in an airport with less than
>a hundred planes in it?

Sure, and that's why import laws won't stop crypto;
if you can smuggle Heavy Weapons into the US by packing them in dope,
you can smuggle in crypto floppies wrapped in darn near anything...

>  Why are the LEA's salaries not tied directly to the price of drugs
>on the street? Because, with the price of heroin at a record low for
>the decade, then these thieving fucks would be making less than the
>minimum wage!

Some countries simplify the mechanism and pay the cops directly in dope....


				Thanks!
					Bill
Bill Stewart, stewarts@ix.netcom.com
Regular Key PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639